Terming the operationalisation of Kundankulam Nuclear Power Plant necessary for the country's growth, it dismissed several PIL's that challenged the Madras High Court's earlier order in favour of the nuclear power plant.
The petitioners had argued that, in 1989, the plant got vague environmental clearance, when the site was not decided and that there was no Environment Impact Assessment done neither any public consultation conducted, in spite of a mandatory requirement under the law.
Concerned about the safety of locals as well as marine life, the locals and activists were apprehensive about the safety measures undertaken.
However, the apex court said, "Kudankulam plant is safe and secure and it is necessary for larger public interest and economic growth of the country."
For the past two years there have been several protests and agitations, as agitators camped at Idinthakarai, demanding that the plant to closed.
The People's Movement against Nuclear Energy (PMANE) has been leading the anti-Kundankulam campaign. To highlight the dangers of the plant coming up in the area, it had cited the example of Fukushima Daiichi disaster in Japan.
The apex court bench of Justic KS Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra also directed the government to submit a report on the compliance of all 17 safety measures before the plant is commissioned.The court said that various expert groups have opined that there would be no impact on the life around the plant because of radiation.
While concurring with the directions and the commissioning of the plant, Justice Dipak Misra said that the larger public interest should prevail over the minor inconveniences that may be caused to the people.
Directing the Nuclear Power Corporation of India and the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board to take all the steps for ensuring the safety of the plant, Justice Misra said in the case of nuclear power plants, there should not be any lapse in operations and the grammar of their safety has to be different.
(With inputs from agencies)